# C_2019206EN.01005001.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/50

---

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Achema and Achema Gas Trade v Commission

(Case T-193/19)

(2019/C 206/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) and Achema Gas Trade UAB (Jonava) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, J. Wileur, and N. Solárová, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C(2018) 7141 final, adopted by the European Commission on 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) — Lithuania — Modification of aid for LNG Terminal in Lithuania; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2018) 7141 final, adopted by the European Commission on 31 October 2018 in State aid case SA.44678 (2018/N) — Lithuania — Modification of aid for LNG Terminal in Lithuania;

| — | order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, to the effect that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure, thereby depriving the applicants and other interested third parties of the procedural rights of Article 108(2) TFEU.

| — | The applicants argue that all the evidence in this case indicates that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the State aid with the internal market and therefore should have opened a formal investigation. The evidence ranges from the length of the preliminary investigation, other circumstances under which the contested decision was adopted and the flaws reflected in the content of the decision, which is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by serious errors of assessment. Moreover, it is alleged that the Commission ignored very relevant aspects that should have been considered before concluding that it had enough information to declare the aid compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants argue that all the evidence in this case indicates that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the State aid with the internal market and therefore should have opened a formal investigation. The evidence ranges from the length of the preliminary investigation, other circumstances under which the contested decision was adopted and the flaws reflected in the content of the decision, which is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by serious errors of assessment. Moreover, it is alleged that the Commission ignored very relevant aspects that should have been considered before concluding that it had enough information to declare the aid compatible with the internal market.

| — | In particular, the applicants argue that: (i) the assessment of the need for a Service of General Economic Interest (SGEI) and its scope is flawed and insufficient; (ii) the Commission erred in finding that the aid was compliant with the SGEI framework; (iii) the contested decision did not sufficiently assess the latest amendments to the aid and therefore lacks adequate reasoning; (iv) the assessment in the contested decision of the necessity and proportionality of the aid measures is flawed and insufficient; and (v) the contested decision fails to sufficiently assess the significant impact on competition in the supply of gas in Lithuania and trade with other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

In particular, the applicants argue that: (i) the assessment of the need for a Service of General Economic Interest (SGEI) and its scope is flawed and insufficient; (ii) the Commission erred in finding that the aid was compliant with the SGEI framework; (iii) the contested decision did not sufficiently assess the latest amendments to the aid and therefore lacks adequate reasoning; (iv) the assessment in the contested decision of the necessity and proportionality of the aid measures is flawed and insufficient; and (v) the contested decision fails to sufficiently assess the significant impact on competition in the supply of gas in Lithuania and trade with other Member States.

---